0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
A Star exploding does not destroy space, there isn't anything I can think up to move or destroy space. I can think up things to move fields but not space. I have not give up as you say, there is just no way, it is an impossibility, you can fill space, but the space still remains even when full. I have spent years trying to destroy space.
Quote from: Thebox on 12/05/2018 23:52:22A Star exploding does not destroy space, there isn't anything I can think up to move or destroy space. I can think up things to move fields but not space. I have not give up as you say, there is just no way, it is an impossibility, you can fill space, but the space still remains even when full. I have spent years trying to destroy space.Arguing that space cannot be destroyed because you can't figure out how to do it is the argument from incredulity fallacy.
Ok I will accept that if you can give an example of how space can be destroyed?
How can nothing be destroyed when nothing does not have an existence?
You would need to demonstrate that space is actually nothing first.
I have done with a balloon example , showing points of space ended up inside the balloon when inflated. Showing there was nothing stopping the balloon inflating .
Also I understand it is hard to accept for you, but nothing only has one direction it can go nothing → something
That doesn't demonstrate that space is nothing.
It demonstrates u0 of space, nothingness.
Do you have evidence for this?
Quote from: Thebox on 13/05/2018 00:15:51It demonstrates u0 of space, nothingness. What does "u0" mean?
permeability
Huh? Seriously to me you are asking some unbelievable questions like as if you have become a bot. Only a bot would not understand that 0 only has one direction it can go . Are you human?
Oh, you meant μ0. How does that demonstrate that space is nothing?
Zero is a number. It doesn't go in directions (whatever that is supposed to mean).
empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience
a hypothesis may be falsified if a vital predicted observation is not found empirically.
absence of evidence as evidence of absence of something
Because it did not oppose the balloons surface.
0 is nothing , nothing only has one way it can go
Quoteempiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experienceThe evidence I provided is empiricism .
Quotea hypothesis may be falsified if a vital predicted observation is not found empirically.Which should apply to set theory also .
Quoteabsence of evidence as evidence of absence of somethingWow that is a mouth full. There is not an absence of evidence that space cannot be destroyed.
There is many many explosions in the universe and it is evident that space cannot be destroyed.
I have demonstrated the evidence, ''your'' absence of any evidence to the contrary , in itself the proof .Not one piece of evidence provided in defence compared to the several demonstrations I have shown.
added - I just tried some super hot plasma to destroy space and guess what ? //www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFT7ATLQQx8Space is still there. Space did not age either it has no motion.
The logical way to prove it to you is a magic trick
in this video observe how the space appears from nowhere
Quote from: Thebox on 13/05/2018 00:50:10Because it did not oppose the balloons surface.Nor did anyone say that space is supposed to oppose it. You seem to be conflating an entity's existence with tangibility and/or drag forces.Quote0 is nothing , nothing only has one way it can goNothing can't "go" anywhere. There is nothing there to do any going.Quote from: Thebox on 13/05/2018 00:57:35 Quoteempiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experienceThe evidence I provided is empiricism ."What I tried didn't work, therefore it can't be done," is poor evidence.QuoteQuotea hypothesis may be falsified if a vital predicted observation is not found empirically.Which should apply to set theory also . Except you haven't falsified anything critical to proving that space can be created or destroyed.Quote from: Thebox on 13/05/2018 01:15:33 Quoteabsence of evidence as evidence of absence of somethingWow that is a mouth full. There is not an absence of evidence that space cannot be destroyed.Only in particular cases. You have not demonstrated a general case that holds for every possible scenario.QuoteThere is many many explosions in the universe and it is evident that space cannot be destroyed. You haven't ruled out non-explosion methods of destroying space.QuoteI have demonstrated the evidence, ''your'' absence of any evidence to the contrary , in itself the proof .Not one piece of evidence provided in defence compared to the several demonstrations I have shown.Your evidence is not conclusive. All you have done is ruled out certain methods for destroying space. This is rather like a person from the 1800s making a list of things that cannot fly to the Moon and using that as "proof" that humans would never fly to the Moon.Quoteadded - I just tried some super hot plasma to destroy space and guess what ? //www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFT7ATLQQx8Space is still there. Space did not age either it has no motion. You're the one who tried it? Funny. I thought the Sun was the one making the plasma...QuoteThe logical way to prove it to you is a magic trick That doesn't prove space can't be destroyed.Quotein this video observe how the space appears from nowhereIf it really is appearing from nowhere, that's the same as space being created. That would contradict your claim that space cannot be created. Perhaps what you meant to say was that it only "looks" like it appears from nowhere?
Just no,....bangs head against wall.
Quote from: Thebox on 13/05/2018 10:49:50Just no,....bangs head against wall.Actually, it's just yes.Your problem may be that you don't accept reality.
"What I tried didn't work, therefore it can't be done," is poor evidence.